Issueshttp://mediamatters.org
In covering and correcting conservative misinformation in the media, Media Matters covers a diverse range of issues, from climate change to the NRA, from the economy to national security. Following is a full range of our issues, which you can click on for further information.en-USCopyright 2015, Media Matters for AmericaAndrew Seifter: <em>WSJ </em>Ed Board Should Read <em>Journal</em>'s Own Reporting On EPA Mercury Rulehttp://mediamatters.org/research/203065
A Wall Street Journal editorial contradicted the Journal's own news reporting by falsely claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) never considered costs when setting regulations on mercury and other toxic air pollution. The Journal editorial also deceptively downplayed the public health benefits of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and baselessly dismissed the dangers of mercury pollution.

WSJ Editorial Contradicted Own Paper's Reporting By Claiming EPA Never Considered Costs

On Wednesday, justices heard oral arguments in a case challenging whether the EPA was justified in deciding to regulate mercury and other pollutants based solely on the fact that exposure posed a public health threat.

A decision is expected in June.

At issue is the agency's decision not to consider how much the rule would cost for the utility industry to comply with before deciding it would set limits on toxic pollutants.

[...]

Administration officials say the EPA was justified in considering cost after making the decision to regulate, rather than before. [National Journal,3/25/15]

WSJ Editorial: EPA Never "Considered Costs" When Setting Mercury And Air Toxics Standards. In a March 25 editorial, the Wall Street Journal claimed that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer "pull[ed] a fast one" during oral arguments by suggesting that the EPA could consider costs "at some point later ... after deciding to regulate" toxic pollutants. The Journal editorial board claimed that Breyer's "invention" would require belief in a "fantasy EPA" that after initially ignoring costs would "all of a sudden become reasonable at step two." The Journal then further claimed that the EPA acknowledged it "didn't" consider costs:

[Justice Breyer suggested] that the EPA will consider costs at some point later when it enforces the mercury rule. The Clean Air Act allows the [EPA], after deciding to regulate, to divide power plants into different "sub-categories" and apply tailor-made rules to each if they are also "appropriate and necessary." The EPA could in theory use this discretion to mitigate any inappropriate costs.

The problem is that this invention requires you to believe in a fantasy EPA that, having willfully disregarded the statute at the "appropriate and necessary" listing stage, will all of a sudden become reasonable at step two. The EPA has never taken Justice Breyer's position, and administrative law requires the agency to explain its decision-making. Neither did the Administration nor any friend-of-the-court brief during the Michigan litigation.

Justice Breyer's theory is also self-contradictory on the merits. If the EPA had determined at the outset that costs could be assuaged at some late date, then it would have considered costs--exactly what it asserted it didn't and wasn't required to do. [Wall Street Journal editorial, 3/25/15] (emphasis added)

WSJ News Article: "[The EPA] Said It Took Costs Into Account Later When It Determined Exactly How To Set Emissions Standards." By contrast, a March 25 Wall Street Journal news article reported that the agency did, in fact, explain that costs were considered at the later stage:

[The EPA] said it was appropriate to consider only public health risks--not industry costs--when it decided to regulate coal- and oil-fired generation plants. That decision was the crux of 90 minutes of oral argument.

The court was considering a section of the Clean Air Act that said the EPA "shall" regulate utilities' emissions of the hazardous air pollutants if it found that such regulation "is appropriate and necessary." The agency said it took costs into account later when it determined exactly how to set emissions standards. [TheWall Street Journal, 3/25/15]

U.S. Dept. Of Justice Brief For The Case: EPA Does Not Consider Costs When "Assessing the Dangers," But Does Later When "Setting Standards." In its brief on behalf of the EPA in Michigan v. EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice noted: "EPA does not consider costs when assessing the dangers at the first stage, but it does consider costs, in accordance with the relevant provisions, when setting standards at the second stage." At one point Justice Breyer himself recognized this point during the Supreme Court's oral arguments in the case, stating: "[T]he [Solicitor General's] brief unambiguously required EPA to consider costs at the second stage of the regulatory process. That's what it said." During oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor similarly noted to U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: "Basically, you have consistently in your brief, and so has the other Respondents, basically said at the listing stage we don't consider costs, we consider it later." [U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Michigan v. EPA, 3/25/15; Michigan v. EPA, Brief for the Federal Respondents, accessed 3/26/15]

U.S. Solicitor General During Oral Arguments: EPA Did Consider Costs At A Later Stage By Separating Out Standards For Different Types Of Power Plants. During the Supreme Court oral arguments Verrilli directly responded to Breyer's inquiry about addressing costs by noting that EPA placed different sources into "subclasses." Verrilli stated: "And EPA did that in this case. It broke out power plants that generate power burning natural gas, and it said that's a separate subcategory." In addition, Paul M. Smith, an attorney representing industry groups that side with the EPA, noted: "[The EPA] categorized oil-fired plants into four categories. They categorized coal-fired plants into various categories. And that was all done through a notice and comment process which led then to different emission standards." Smith then confirmed to Justice Anthony Kennedy that this was "done based on cost." As Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan described it, "costs become relevant later in the analysis, and in a variety of ways." [U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Michigan v. EPA, 3/25/15]

NYU's Institute For Policy Integrity: Federal Regulatory Review Confirms "EPA Considered Costs And Benefits In A Reasonable Manner." In an amicus curiae supporting the EPA's position in the case, the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity noted:

When a rule's benefits do not justify its costs, [the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs] OIRA can return a rule to the proposing agency for further review.

Business Insider: "The EPA Did Factor In Costs At A Later Stage." Business Insider reported, "The EPA did factor in costs at a later stage when it wrote standards that are expected to reduce the toxic emissions by 90 percent." [Business Insider, 3/25/15]

Vox: EPA Says It Considered Costs When Setting Regulations. According to Vox, "the agency considers costs in the later stage, when it's actually setting regulations. And, the EPA says, that's what it did." [Vox, 3/25/15]

WSJ Editorial Deceptively Compared Full Cost Of Rule To A Fraction Of Its Health Benefits

WSJ Editorial: Reducing Mercury Emissions Will "Produce Merely $500,000 To $6 Million In Direct Public Health Benefits." The Journal editorial alleged: "The EPA's own estimate shows that reducing mercury emissions will produce merely $500,000 to $6 million in direct public health benefits annually. But it will cost the electric industry some $10 billion a year to comply--meaning as much as $20,000 may be needed to produce a single dollar of gains." [Wall Street Journal editorial, 3/25/15]

WSJ News Article: EPA Found "The Actual Benefits Of The Regulations Would Be At Least $37 Billion." By contrast, the Wall Street Journal news article noted that Solicitor General Verrilli "referenced EPA findings that the actual benefits of the regulations would be at least $37 billion." Indeed, in its regulatory impact analysis, the EPA found that the Mercury And Air Toxics Standards would "yield annual monetized benefits (in 2007$) of between $37 to $90 billion," largely due to "co-benefits from 4,200 to 11,000 fewer [fine particle pollution]-related premature mortalities." [The Wall Street Journal, 3/25/15; EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, December 2011]

EPA: Agency Reduced Costs In Response To Public Input, Allowing Americans To Get $3-9 In Health Benefits For Each Dollar Spent On The Rule. According to an EPA fact sheet on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards:

After proposal, EPA received more than 900,000 comments. Based on this input and data, the agency has finalized standards that follow the law, maintain vital and significant health benefits and can be implemented for $9.6 billion, about a billion dollars less than the proposed standards. That means that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution, Americans get $3-9 in health benefits in return. [EPA Fact Sheet, accessed 3/26/15]

Even Health Benefits Just From Reduced Mercury Pollution Are Likely Higher Than Figures Cited By WSJ. The figure the Journal editorial cited was based on EPA's estimate of the "economic benefits associated with avoided IQ loss due to reduced [mercury] exposure among recreational freshwater anglers" in the continental United States. However, while the EPA noted that "ingestion of fish" is the "primary route for human exposures in the U.S.," it added that limitations on the ability to measure the full economic value of reduced mercury pollution "suggest that the benefits of mercury reductions are understated by our analysis." [EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, December 2011]

WSJ Editorial Baselessly Dismissed Dangers From Mercury Pollution

WSJ Editorial Claimed Mercury Pollution Is Not Worthy Of Concern. In order to smear the EPA's intentions, the Wall Street Journal editorial claimed: "Mercury pollution is already de minimis and well controlled, but the rule isn't really about mercury. It is part of the EPA's larger campaign to drive coal-fired power plants out of business." [Wall Street Journal editorial, 3/25/15]

WSJ News Article: EPA Said Power Plants Are Single Largest Source Of Mercury, Which Can Be "Particularly Harmful To Children And Unborn Babies." In contrast to the editorial, the Wall Street Journal news article reported, "The EPA said such plants are the single largest source of U.S. emissions of mercury, a neurotoxin that can be particularly harmful to children and unborn babies. [The Wall Street Journal, 3/25/15]

Greenwire: Scientists Say Each Pound Of Mercury In The Environment Makes 2 Million Pounds Of Fish Unsafe To Eat. According to a Greenwire report:

The sectors subjected to new rules -- coal plants, industrial boilers, cement plants, hazardous waste incinerators, gold mines and chlor-alkali plants -- together produce about 80 of the 100 tons of mercury that American facilities release into the air each year.

That doesn't sound like much, considering the United States produces 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, but mercury is extremely potent. Scientists estimate that 1 pound in the environment is enough to make about 2 million pounds of fish unsafe to eat. [Greenwire,12/8/10]

]]>http://mediamatters.org/research/203065Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:52:26 EDTMedia Matters staff: <em>Special Report </em>Segment Claims FEMA Forcing States To "Get In Line Ideologically" With Climate Changehttp://mediamatters.org/video/203048
From the March 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

]]>http://mediamatters.org/video/203048Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:52:21 EDTDenise Robbins: The Koch Brothers' Campaign Against EPA Climate Safeguards Is In Your Newspaperhttp://mediamatters.org/research/203041
At least 16 U.S. newspapers have recently published op-eds by state officials of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the Koch brothers' political advocacy group, urging state legislatures to oppose the EPA's plan to address climate change by limiting carbon pollution from power plants. These newspapers have consistently failed to disclose the authors' oil industry ties, and the op-eds themselves "misleadingly" cite statistics on electricity prices from an industry-funded study, as a media fact-checker has explained.

At Least 16 Newspapers Have Published AFP Op-Eds Asking States To Fight Back Against EPA's Clean Power Plan. Nearly identical op-eds have been published in at least 16 newspapers across the country, each written by the Americans for Prosperity chapter director or deputy director in that state. The op-eds call for state legislatures to fight back against the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which would place the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants. Some of the recent AFP op-eds include headlines such as:

"Arizona should fight useless coal regulations"

"Protect taxpayers from EPA"

"Protect power grid from EPA mandate"

"State lawmakers should fight the EPA"

"South Dakota's legislature should stop EPA"

"Florida state lawmakers should fight EPA's dangerous economic plan"

"Virginia state legislators should fight the EPA"

Authors Are Disclosed Only As State Officials Of AFP, With No Mention Of Oil Industry Ties. Among the newspapers examined that published an op-ed by an AFP state official, every newspaper except for one identified the author only as state director (or deputy state director) of Americans for Prosperity. The sole exception, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, identified the author as "the Texas state director of the conservative political action group Americans for Prosperity" (emphasis added). But no newspaper disclosed that Americans for Prosperity is run by the oil baron Koch brothers.

Americans For Prosperity Is The Political Arm Of The Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers

Koch Brothers Co-Founded Group That Later Became Americans For Prosperity Foundation. The Koch brothers' company, Koch Industries, notes on its website that Charles and David Koch, along with two others, founded the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, which later became the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and that the AFP Foundation created the 501(c)(4) organization Americans for Prosperity. Koch Industries also acknowledges on its website that Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation have "received monetary support from Koch companies, Charles Koch, David Koch, and/or the Koch foundations." [Koch Industries, accessed 3/25/15]

Politico: Americans For Prosperity Is "[T]he Koch Brothers' Main Political Arm." In reporting on Americans for Prosperity's political spending for the 2014 mid-term elections, Politico noted that Americans for Prosperity is the "Koch brothers' main political arm." [Politico, 5/9/14]

Koch Brothers Are Oil Industry Billionaires.The New Yorker reported, "With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline." [The New Yorker, 8/30/10]

Center For Public Integrity: "It's In The Kochs' Commercial Interest To Preserve America's Reliance On Carbon-Based Energy Sources." The Center for Public Integrity reported that oil is the "core of the Koch business empire," and that it is in their "commercial interest" to keep America dependent on carbon-based energy sources:

Oil is the core of the Koch business empire, and the company's lobbyists and officials have successfully fought to preserve the industry's tax breaks and credits, and to defeat attempts by Congress to regulate greenhouse gases.

[...]

It's in the Kochs' commercial interest to preserve America's reliance on carbon-based energy sources. Despite recent diversification, Koch remains a major petrochemical company with refineries in North Pole, Alaska; Corpus Christi, Texas; Rosemount, Minn., and Rotterdam in the Netherlands; an array of chemical plants; a coal subsidiary (the C. Reiss Coal Co.) and 4,000 miles of pipelines.

So it is not surprising that, when the Obama administration and the Democrats on Capitol Hill proposed to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases in recent years, Koch Industries responded with a fervent counteroffensive. [Center for Public Integrity, 4/6/11]

In 2009, AFP Was "Third Largest Recipient" Of Funding From Koch Foundations. A DeSmogBlog investigation of the funding behind AFP reported in 2009 that the group is the "third largest recipient of funding from the Koch Family Foundations," which is funded by Koch Industries. [DeSmogBlog, 2/26/09]

Media Professionals Have Expressed Concern Over Such Lack Of Disclosure

Media Professionals: Lack Of Disclosure A "Growing Problem In American Journalism." A petition signed in 2011 by over 50 individuals currently and formerly active in the media industry expressed concern about the "growing problem in American journalism" of media outlets publishing commentaries from industry-funded contributors without disclosing their special interest ties. From the letter:

There is a disturbing trend of special interests surreptitiously funding "experts" to push industry talking points in the nation's major media outlets. When these expert commentaries appear in media outlets, their special interest ties go unreported.

[...]

Unfortunately, when media outlets quote or publish op-eds from "bought and biased" pundits, the conflict of interest goes unmentioned.

[...]

[W]e believe media outlets have the responsibility to inform their readers of opinion writers' true ties and conflicts of interest. [True Ties, 10/6/11]

AFP Op-Eds Are Being "Misleading" By Citing Dubious Study To Attack Clean Power Plan

AFP Op-Eds Cite Industry-Funded Study To Claim Clean Power Plan Will Be Expensive For Consumers. Every op-ed Media Matters examined cited figures from a recent study carried out by NERA Economic Consulting to allege that the Clean Power Plan would increase electricity prices. For example, the op-ed published in the Arizona Republic stated: "According to a study from NERA Economic Consulting, Arizona families could see their electricity bills jump 13 percent every year from 2017 to 2031." The study was commissioned by fossil fuel interests including American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and National Mining Association. [Arizona Republic, 3/22/15; NERA Economic Consulting, October 2014]

Washington Post "Fact Checker" Said It Is "Misleading" To Cite The NERA Study's Figures. When Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) cited the NERA study to claim that the Clean Power Plan "will result in double-digit electricity prices in 43 states," Washington Post's "Fact Checker" blog responded that Inhofe's claim was "misleading" because the study's numbers "are on the high end of a range of cost impacts, which are mere projections at this point." The "Fact Checker" noted that supporters of the Clean Power Plan say the NERA study "inflates the cost of energy efficiency programs" and "ignores long-term benefits of energy efficiency programs that ultimately could drive actual energy bills down." It concluded: "A lot of the costs can be driven down by state, local and regional policymakers, and some of them already are working with the EPA to figure out cost-effective plans." [Washington Post, 3/13/15]

Union Of Concerned Scientists: NERA "Falsely Inflates Costs." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) stated that the NERA study "falsely inflates the cost" of the Clean Power Plan by "denying energy efficiency's proven ability to save consumers money." UCS went on to explain that the NERA study uses "a 2012 study that has been repeatedly discredited" to justify its inflated cost estimates. [Union of Concerned Scientists, 11/14/14]

EPA: Clean Power Plan Benefits Will Dwarf Costs. The EPA found that by 2030, the cost of complying with the Clean Power Plan will be $7.3-8.8 billion, whereas it will lead to climate and health benefits worth $55 to $93 billion. [EPA, accessed 3/25/15]

]]>http://mediamatters.org/research/203041Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:22:33 EDTDenise Robbins: Conservative Media Cry Wolf On FEMA Climate Policyhttp://mediamatters.org/research/203022
Conservative media are alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is attempting to "punish" governors who do not acknowledge climate change by "holding disaster funds hostage." In reality, FEMA is simply updating its requirements for state disaster mitigation plans to ensure that they include consideration of climate change impacts, which is essential to reduce risk from hazards that states will face as the climate continues to change.

FEMA: State Risk Assessments Must Account For Changing Climate Conditions That Affect Disaster Vulnerability. In March this year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released its new State Mitigation Plan Review Guide, which will supersede prior hazard mitigation policies for states and go into effect in March 2016. The new guidelines require that states applying for disaster preparedness funds produce plans that consider "changing environmental or climate conditions that may affect and influence the long-term vulnerability from hazards in the state." The guidelines further state that an understanding of climate vulnerabilities will help states "prioritiz[e] mitigation actions" and that FEMA will "work with states to identify tools and approaches that ... reduce risks and increase resilience from a changing climate":

Focus on Reducing Risks. Resilience, in terms of mitigation planning, means the ability to adapt to changing conditions and prepare for, withstand, and rapidly recover from disruptions caused by a hazard. State risk assessments must be current, relevant, and include new hazard data, such as recent events, current probability data, loss estimation models, or new flood studies as well as information from local and tribal mitigation plans, as applicable, and consideration of changing environmental or climate conditions that may affect and influence the long-term vulnerability from hazards in the state. FEMA recognizes there exists inherent uncertainty about future conditions and will work with states to identify tools and approaches that enable decision-making to reduce risks and increase resilience from a changing climate. An understanding of vulnerabilities will assist with prioritizing mitigation actions and policies that reduce risk from future events. [FEMA, March 2015]

New Guidelines Will Not Affect Money For Relief After A Disaster Occurs. InsideClimateNews expanded on the FEMA policy, explaining that it will not affect federal money for relief after a disaster occurs:

The policy doesn't affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood or other disaster. Specifically, beginning in March 2016, states seeking preparedness money will have to assess how climate change threatens their communities. Governors will have to sign off on hazard mitigation plans. While some states, including New York, have already started incorporating climate risks in their plans, most haven't because FEMA's old 2008 guidelines didn't require it. [InsideClimateNews, 3/18/15]

Fox News: FEMA "Holding Disaster Funds Hostage." In a headline rundown on the March 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First, co-host Heather Childers declared that FEMA is "holding disaster funds hostage, all in the name of global warming." She went on to state that the agency "will deny all disaster preparedness money to states with governors who don't incorporate global warming into their emergency plans starting next year." The segment's on-screen text stated: "Climate change... or bust. FEMA to deny funds to global warming deniers."

Drudge Report, Fox Nation Hype Washington Times Article Claiming FEMA Guidelines Are "Target[ing] Climate Change Skeptic Governors." The Washington Times published an article on March 23 headlined: "FEMA targets climate change skeptic governors, could withhold funding." The article was reproduced on the Fox News site FoxNation.com, and hyped on the conservative news aggregator site The Drudge Report on March 24:

Patriot Post: FEMA Will "Punish Climate Skeptics." The conservative blog Patriot Post published an article headlined: "FEMA to Punish Climate Skeptics," which claimed that FEMA "is cracking down on Republican governors who don't agree on the supposed impacts of man-made global warming." The Patriot Post also described the guidelines as "sanctioning." [Patriot Post, 3/23/15]

It goes without saying that this is a bit of a low blow. FEMA isn't supposed to be a political organization--saving people from hurricanes and other disasters should not be politicized. It's also not a good practice for the federal government to essentially hold funds hostage until a state behave a certain way.

The article also included tweets from the author's colleague, who wrote that the move is being used to "deny disaster funding to states with governor's [sic] Dems don't like":

Hot Air: FEMA Policy Is A "Political Pander To The Left" That "Plac[es] Citizens At Risk." A post on the conservative blog Hot Air derided the move as "an obvious political pander to the left with a bonus of putting right-wingers in a spot, even at the expense of placing citizens at risk":

"This story really brings together all the elements of Obamaism," tweets Dan McLaughlin. which is true. It's legally dubious; it ignores Congress, which might constitutionally have the power to let FEMA make this judgment but hasn't been consulted; it's an obvious political pander to the left with a bonus of putting right-wingers in a spot, even at the expense of placing citizens at risk; and it craps all over state autonomy. Basically, it's the environmental equivalent of executive amnesty. All that's missing is 18-24 months of Obama statements denying that he'd ever do something like this before turning around and doing it. [Hot Air, 3/23/15]

Daily Caller: FEMA Guidelines "Essentially Force" States To Acknowledge "Alleged" Risks Of Man-Made Climate Change. The Daily Caller reported on March 23 that the guidelines "essentially force some state governments to acknowledge the alleged risks of man-made warming." [Daily Caller, 3/23/15]

Neil Cavuto And Jay Lehr Deny That Fracking Has Polluted Water Supplies

Cavuto And Lehr: It Hasn't Been "Proven" That Fracking Contaminates Water Wells. On the March 20 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Cavuto hosted a discussion with The Heartland Institute's Jay Lehr and The Accountability Project's president Nomiki Konst concerning newly unveiled fracking regulations by the U.S. Department of the Interior. During the discussion, Cavuto suggested that it hasn't been "proven" that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated water supplies, and Lehr similarly claimed that "we really haven't proven that there's been a single water supply well contaminated" by fracking operations.

But There Are Hundreds Of Documented Cases Of Leaky Fracking Wells Contaminating Water Supplies

National Academy Of Sciences Study Found Leaky Fracking Wells Contaminated Water In PA And TX.Ohio State geochemist Thomas Darrah was the lead author of a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in August 2014, which found that drinking water supplies in Pennsylvania and Texas were contaminated by gas leakage from fracking wells. The study attributed the contamination to poorly sealed pipes, "faulty production casings," and an "underground gas well failure." [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 8/12/14]

Pennsylvania Department Of Environmental Protection: Drilling Operations Damaged Over 200 Drinking Water Wells. In response to lawsuits and open-records requests from news organizations, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) revealed in 2014 that oil and gas operations damaged 243 private drinking water wells in 22 counties since 2008, largely from fracking operations in the Marcellus Shale region. The Associated Press reported that the problems identified in the cases, which the Pennsylvania DEP posted online, included "methane gas contamination, spills of wastewater and other pollutants, and wells that went dry or were otherwise undrinkable." [Associated Press, 8/29/14]

Associated Press: Several Drillers Agreed To Take Corrective Action In Response To Cases Of Water Contamination In West Virginia. The Associated Press requested data on drilling-related complaints in several states including West Virginia. The AP reported that state officials said "West Virginia has had about 122 complaints that drilling contaminated water wells over the past four years, and in four cases the evidence was strong enough that the driller agreed to take corrective action." [Associated Press, 1/5/14]

Cavuto Also Laughed Off Bush Administration's Role In Crafting The "Halliburton Loophole" For Fracking Operations

Cavuto Dismissed Concern That Bush Administration Exempted Fracking From Safe Drinking Water Act Protections. During the Your World segment, Konst noted that it used to be illegal to inject chemicals used for fracking into the ground before the George W. Bush administration oversaw a change in the law. Cavuto completely dismissed this argument, laughing, "Bush, I knew it! The gift that keeps giving." Cavuto also reacted with amusement when Konst connected the problem to former Vice President Dick Cheney. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 3/20/15]

Bush Administration's Energy Policy Act Of 2005 Included "Halliburton Loophole" That Exempted Many Fracking Operations From Restrictions On Injecting Chemicals Into The Ground. The Huffington Post reported:

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals to tap into oil and natural gas reserves stored in shale rock. While the Safe Drinking Water Act, first passed in 1974, regulates what can be injected into the ground, energy legislation in 2005 exempted many fluids used in fracking from those restrictions. Companies are still supposed to disclose if they are using diesel fuel in their fracking operations and obtain a permit. But they don't have to do that for other petroleum-based chemicals. The provision became known as the Halliburton loophole because of then-Vice President and former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney's reported involvement in crafting the law. [Huffington Post, 10/22/14]

The environmental group Earthworks similarly noted: "This exemption from the [Safe Drinking Water Act] has become known as the 'Halliburton loophole' because it is widely perceived to have come about as a result of the efforts of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. Before taking office, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton -- which patented hydraulic fracturing in the 1940s, and remains one of the three largest manufacturers of fracturing fluids." [Earthworks, "The Halliburton Loophole," accessed 3/24/15]

Environmental Integrity Project: Halliburton Loophole Has Allowed Fracking Companies To Inject Carcinogenic Chemicals Into The Ground. An October 2014 report from the Environmental Integrity Project documented how the Safe Drinking Water Act loophole has allowed fracking companies to inject cancer-causing agents like benzene and other toxic chemicals into the ground:

Despite a federal ban on the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing without a permit, several oil and gas companies are exploiting a Safe Drinking Water Act loophole pushed through by Halliburton to frack with petroleum-based products containing even more dangerous toxic chemicals than diesel.

For example, a drilling company in West Texas injected up to 48,000 gallons of benzene (a carcinogen) into the ground just last month.

[...]

At least six fracking fluid additives on the market today contain more benzene (a carcinogen) than diesel fuel. And at least 21 fluids sold by Halliburton and other companies contain much higher concentrations of ethylbenzene (a probable carcinogen) than benzene, according to industry product descriptions available online. These fracking fluid additives also contained very high levels of xylene and toluene, which can cause neurological problems and other health effects.

[...]

In some cases, the amount of toxic fracking fluids injected into the ground is large. For example, in September, a Texas-based oil and gas company called BlackBrush O&G, LLC, reported injecting a mix of crude oil, butane, and other fluids containing up to 48,000 gallons of benzene into a well in Dimmit County, Texas. Between May 2013 and February 2014, another firm, Discovery Operating Services, reported injecting solvents containing nearly 1,000 gallons of benzene into eleven wells in Midland and Upland Counties in Texas.[Environmental Integrity Project, 10/22/14]

A Daily Caller article made a sweeping generalization to claim that global warming did not harm the South Pacific Islands when a deadly cyclone recently struck. But scientists quoted within the article itself explained definitively that climate change-induced sea level rise actually did worsen the cyclone's devastating impacts.

Cyclone Pam tore through the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu last weekend, killing 24 people and displacing tens of thousands of others. In response, President Baldwin Lonsdale of Vanuatu made an impassioned appeal to world leaders to act on global warming, stating that "climate change is contributing" to the nation's intense cyclones.

The conservative news site Daily Caller was quick to find fault with Lonsdale's remarks. In a March 18 article headlined: "Report: Global Warming Did Not Devastate South Pacific Islands," writer Michael Bastasch claimed that "scientists are hesitant to blame rising carbon dioxide levels for wreaking havoc on Vanuatu."

What some of the scientists had to say, however, actually agreed with the idea that climate change increased the storm's impacts -- specifically, that global warming-driven sea level rise made the effects of the cyclone far worse.

In fact, Bastasch himself ultimately noted in the article that the scientists unwilling to directly attribute Cyclone Pam to global warming were (emphasis added): "instead pointing out that sea level risescaused by global warming, not the cycles themselves, are causing more damage."

Global warming-driven sea level rise is indeed a primary factor for cyclone damage -- particularly in low-lying islands such as Vanuatu -- as it contributes to bouts of sudden extreme flooding known as storm surges. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says that storm surges from hurricanes pose "the greatest threat to life and property" in coastal areas. During Cyclone Pam, the Vanuatu islands reportedly experienced storm surges as high as eight meters -- over 26 feet. Vice News reported that a 2014 NOAA study "found that changes in both ocean and atmospheric temperatures had combined to substantially increase the potential intensity of storms in the area where Pam hit."

Fox News is fearmongering that the EPA is going to monitor the shower use of hotel guests because the agency gave a research grant to college students working on a wireless device that would allow hotels to examine guests' shower use and encourage water conservation. Fox News portrayed this as a "Big Brother move," despite a complete absence of evidence that the agency will actually monitor hotel guests' water usage. Further, research into water conservation -- including this project -- is desperately needed as the West Coast suffers from a historic drought.

The EPA recently awarded the grant, for $15,000, to student researchers at the University of Tulsa. The EPA's description of the grant says the device will "assist hotel guest[s] in modifying their behavior to help conserve water."

On the March 18 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Heather Nauert reported on the story by saying, "Well, forget about taking a long, hot shower on vacation, and if you think you're doing it in private, well, you might want to think again." A graphic in the segment also gratuitously claimed: "EPA To Start Monitoring Showers At Hotels":

Other right-wing media took the fearmongering even further, publishing stories with headlines like "The EPA wants to watch you in the shower" and "New EPA Proposal Would Spy On Hotel Guests In The Shower." Rush Limbaugh baselessly warned on the March 17 edition of his radio show that if the grant is implemented, "you're gonna have one in your house before too long." He went on to say, "Everybody's afraid of this administration. Everybody is. So then the EPA is gonna monitor the length of your showers -- My point is, if this ever really happens, this is not gonna stop at hotels. You're gonna have one of these in your house."

The EPA is not going anywhere near your shower. The agency is merely supporting research that would send data on water use to a central hotel accounting system -- much like a smart meter that supplies information to utilities about residents' electricity consumption habits. The device could ultimately help companies save money as well as protect the environment. Many hotels have several conservation efforts currently in place; it makes economic sense to do so.

]]>http://mediamatters.org/blog/202944Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:49:22 EDTJeremy Holden: How Some Media Outlets Are Helping A Trade Group Misleadingly Imply That The Advanced Biofuel Industry Opposes Renewable Fuel Standardshttp://mediamatters.org/research/202896
The Houston Chronicle and Reuters are helping the Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA) overstate its membership and downplay its connections to the oil industry, facilitating its advocacy to reform the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). In fact, major developers of advanced biofuels continue to support the standards and are not members of the association - which is largely run by executives with deep roots in the oil industry.

Reuters: Move Exemplifies A "Growing Rift Between Corn-Based Ethanol Producers" And "The Rest Of The Renewable Fuels Industry." Reuters reported on March 11 that the Advanced Biofuels Assocation's move to reform the Renewable Fuel Standard "underscores a growing rift between corn-based ethanol producers, which represent the bulk of U.S. biofuels production, and the rest of the renewable fuels industry." [Reuters, 3/11/15]

But Major Advanced Biofuel Companies Support The RFS

Advanced Ethanol Council Director Criticized ABFA's Move. The Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC) -- which is comprised of advanced biofuels companies -- has expressed repeated support for the RFS. AEC president Brooke Coleman recently criticized ABFA's move to "open up the RFS," as reported in Politico's Morning Energy. Coleman reportedly said: "Not a single first mover in the commercial deployment of cellulosic ethanol supports the effort to open up the RFS or somehow break with the coalition that got the policy done in the first place and continues to defend it. [Renewable Fuels Association, 12/12/13; Politico's Morning Energy, 3/12/15]

POET-DSM Responds To ABFA Move: "Congress Should Stand Behind" RFS. According to the Des Moines Register, advanced ethanol producer POET-DSM issued a statement reiterating its support for the Renewable Fuel Standard:

"POET-DSM invested hundreds of millions of dollars into bringing cellulosic ethanol technology to commercial scale based on the promise of the Renewable Fuel Standard as originally written into law. Congress should stand behind that policy so that investment in clean, domestic energy can continue here in the U.S," said Dan Cummings, president of POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels. [Des Moines Register, 3/11/15]

Quad County Corn Processors: Advanced Ethanol Industry Has "Grown By Leaps And Bounds" Because Of RFS. The CEO of Quad County Corn Processors, which has advanced ethanol operations, wrote in a Des Moines Register editorial that the RFS "gave [them] a base on which to build [their] new cellulosic ethanol technology":

That industry has grown by leaps and bounds in large part because Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard requiring motor vehicle fuel to include renewable elements such as ethanol. The Renewable Fuel Standard developed the infrastructure and industrial process to generate conventional ethanol, which gave us a base on which to build our new cellulosic ethanol technology. [Des Moines Register, 9/14/14]

DuPont Called For Preservation Of RFS. In a keynote speech at the 2014 Annual World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology, DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman called for Congress to preserve the RFS. From a DuPont press release:

"Legislative and regulatory uncertainty has a direct impact on the growth of this industry," Kullman said. "If the EPA issues an RFS rule with increasing biofuels volumes, supporting a stable regulatory environment, our industry can thrive."She continued, "So let me state clearly: the Renewable Fuel Standard works and Congress and the administration need to ensure its stability. This will bring a reduced reliance on fossil fuels, increased energy security, many more rural jobs and much needed environmental benefits." [Dupont, 5/13/14]

Novozymes: "Advanced biofuels are commercializing because the Renewable Fuel Standard is working." Novozymes, which has a cellulosic ethanol plant in North Carolina, cited the RFS as the reason for the success of the advanced biofuel industry. President Adam Monroe stated: "Advanced biofuels are commercializing because the Renewable Fuel Standard is working. With public and private investment, we are adding to America's mix of domestic energy, reducing prices for consumers and freeing us from our dependence on oil." [Novozymes, accessed 3/13/15]

Every Executive Member Of ABFA Is Linked To The Oil Industry

ABFA Executive Committee And Officers Comprised Of Current And Former Oil Industry Members. ABFA's website includes biographies for its "executive committee and officers." Each executive member listed has current or former ties to the oil industry:

Michael McAdams, AFBA's president, spent over 14 years working for BP, where served as the vice president of the Eastern United States for government and public affairs as well as vice president of government affairs and the environment. [ABFA, accessed 3/13/15]

Chairman Wayne Symmons worked for several years at Exxon. According to ABFA's website, Symmons "spent much of his early career in various management and engineering positions at Exxon." [ABFA, accessed 3/13/15]

Lee Edwards worked for BP for 25 years, "including CEO of BP Solar, President of BP Pipelines, North America, Chief Information Officer for Downstream, and Vice President, BP Global Brand." [ABFA, accessed 3/13/15]

Neville Fernandes is currently "General Manager of Neste Oil's US business, and President of Neste Oil US, Inc. located in Houston, Texas." Neste Oil, a "refining and marketing company," offers petroleum products along with other forms of biofuels. [ABFA, accessed 3/13/15; Neste Oil, accessed 3/13/15]

Henrik Erametsa is currently "Head of US Federal Affairs at Neste Oil." [ABFA, accessed 3/13/15]

John Kasbaum held "various positions at Albemarle Corporation," which "supplies top performance catalysts, antioxidants, technologies and related services to the petroleum refining and chemical industries" according to their website. He also "led the formation of Albemarle's highly successful petroleum refining Hydroprocessing Alliance with Honeywell's UOP division as Alliance Director." [Abermarle, accessed 3/13/15; ABFA, accessed 3/13/15]

Alan Hiltner was previously "Vice President of Planning and Development of Braskem, the largest petrochemical company in Latin America." He also previously held a position at "Petrobras, an integrated oil and gas company and the largest company by market capitalization in the Southern Hemisphere." [ABFA, accessed 3/13/15]

The New York Times recently published an op-ed attacking renewable fuels from the Manhattan Institute's Robert Bryce without disclosing his ties to the oil industry, despite a directive from its former public editor for the paper to fully disclose its op-ed contributors' financial conflicts of interest.

In a March 10 New York Timesop-ed, Robert Bryce falsely characterized the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as an expensive "tax." The standard, which requires oil refiners, blenders, and gasoline and diesel importers to blend a set amount of renewable fuel into their gasoline supply, was dismissed by Bryce as a "boondoggle" and a "rip-off."

But the Times failed to disclose Bryce's financial incentive to attack the RFS, identifying him only as a "senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of a new report from the institute, 'The Hidden Corn-Ethanol Tax.'" The Manhattan Institute has, in fact, received millions from oil interests over the years, including $635,000 from ExxonMobil and $1.9 million from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, where Charles Koch and his wife sit on the board of directors. Koch made his fortune from oil and currently has significant holdings in oil and gas operations.

Bryce is, in essence, acting as a spokesperson for the oil industry, which has much to gain from weakening or repealing the RFS. The renewable fuel requirement is set to increase over the next several years, potentially replacing up to 13.6 billion gallons of the conventional fuel supply by 2022.

A new documentary shows how a "professional class of deceivers" has been paid by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on the science of climate change, in an effort akin to that from the tobacco industry, which for decades used deceitful tactics to deny the scientific evidence that cigarettes are harmful to human health. The film, Merchants of Doubt, explores how many of the same people that once lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry are now employed in the climate denial game.

An infamous 1969 memo from a tobacco executive read: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Using similar tactics, a very small set of people have had immense influence in sowing doubt on the scientific consensus of manmade climate change in recent years.

Merchants of Doubtfeatures five prominent climate science deniers who have been particularly influential in deceiving the public and blocking climate action. Their financial connections to the fossil fuel industry are not hard to uncover. Yet major U.S. television networks -- CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and PBS -- have given most of these deniers prominent exposure over the past several years.

Merchant of Doubt

Number of TV Appearances, 2009-2014

Marc Morano

30

James Taylor

8

Fred Singer

8

Tim Phillips

7

Now that these Merchants of Doubt have been exposed, the major cable and network news programs need to keep them off the airwaves, a sentiment echoed by Forecast the Facts, which recently launched a petition demanding that news directors do just that.

Fox News regular Marc Morano is worried that Google is going to start burying his climate change denial website, Climate Depot, which is full of toxic inaccuracies and could therefore be vulnerable to Google's plan to rank websites based on their truthfulness.

A Google research team has developed a system to more thoroughly judge the accuracy of a web page's information. The team's new research paper describing the metric states that a source would be considered "trustworthy" based on "the correctness of factual information provided by the source." Though the system and its algorithm are still in development, the researchers have claimed that it shows "promise in evaluating web source quality."

Morano's concern over the new search algorithm is understandable, given that his climate denial website, Climate Depot, would likely be buried in searches using the new accuracy-based system.

The recent documentary Merchants of Doubt highlighted how Morano has used his media appearances and his website -- which he is paid to run by a fossil fuel industry-funded organization -- to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.

The March 6 edition of Fox News' Happening Now featured Morano expressing his concern over the new search metric:

]]>http://mediamatters.org/blog/202796Fri, 06 Mar 2015 05:49:15 ESTAndrew Seifter: Fit To Print: The GOP's Deepening Climate Change Dividehttp://mediamatters.org/blog/202772
The Republican party's deep divisions on climate change and the environment were on full display at the recently-concluded Conservative Political Aciton Committee (CPAC). How the GOP presidential contenders attempt to navigate these divisions is an important news story that deserves media attention in the weeks and months ahead.

Several weeks ahead of CPAC, a poll came out showing that 48% of Republicans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports taking action on climate change, compared to just 24% who would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. The poll also showed that GOP supporters are inclined to oppose candidates who view climate change as a "hoax" by the same 2-to-1 ratio.

While many self-described Republicans support climate action, it seems unlikely that the same can be said of the conservative activists and donors who attended this year's CPAC.

CPAC attendees are far more engaged than rank-and-file Republicans, and the GOP presidential contenders know that winning support -- financial and otherwise -- from the CPAC base will be crucial if they hope to emerge from a crowded primary field and ultimately capture the presidency. But trying to appease the CPAC crowd's anti-environmental extremism without alienating most Americans -- and even many Republicans -- could prove to be an insurmountable task.

]]>http://mediamatters.org/blog/202772Thu, 05 Mar 2015 03:10:33 ESTAndrew Seifter: <em>Wash. Post</em> "Fact Checker" Misstates The Facts On Keystone XL Exportshttp://mediamatters.org/research/202720
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler claimed that President Obama "appears to be purposely ignoring" the U.S. State Department's conclusions on whether most of the refined oil products from the Keystone XL pipeline would be exported. However, the State Department did not find that the majority of the refined oil products from Keystone XL would be consumed in the U.S., as Kessler suggested, and groups opposing Keystone XL note that the coastal refineries Keystone XL would service currently ship more than half of their refined oil products overseas.

Wash. Post Fact Checker Wrongly Claims State Dept. Said Majority Of Refined Keystone XL Product Would Remain In The U.S.

Kessler: IHS Finding That Most Refined Keystone XL Products Would Be Consumed In The U.S. "Mirrors The Conclusions" Of The State Department. On March 2, The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler devoted his "Fact Checker" blog to criticizing President Obama's recent statement that the tar sands oil that would flow through the Keystone XL pipeline "bypasses the United States." Kessler noted that the energy consulting firm IHS Energy recently "concluded that 70 percent of the refined product" from Keystone XL's oil "would be consumed in the United States." He then claimed that the IHS report "mirrors the conclusions" of the State Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement on Keystone XL, citing portions of the State Department report that addressed the likelihood of crude oil exports -- but not the likelihood that refined products would be exported. Kessler declared it "especially strange" that President Obama would ignore the State Department's findings on the issue, and later chastised Obama for not "tak[ing] the time to review the State Department report":

Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower.

A report released in February by IHS Energy, which consults for energy companies, concluded that "Canadian crude making its way to the USGC [Gulf Coast] will likely be refined there, and most of the refined products are likely to be consumed in the United States." It added that "for Gulf refineries, heavy bitumen blends from the oil sands are an attractive substitute for declining offshore heavy crude supply from Latin America." It concluded that 70 percent of the refined product would be consumed in the United States.

Enviromentalists [sic] dismiss IHS as a biased source, but the analysis mirrors the conclusions of the State Department's final environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL project. This is what is especially strange about Obama's remarks, as he appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue.

[...]

When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios -- and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report.

But State Dept. Did Not Find That Majority Of Refined Oil Products From Keystone XL Would Be Consumed In The U.S

State Department's Draft Environmental Impact Statement Said Less Than Half Of Refined Products In Gulf Coast Region "Go To The Domestic Market." In the "Market Analysis" section of its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), the State Department wrote that "almost half of PADD 3 refined products go to the domestic market." PADD 3 is the name for the refineries in the Gulf Coast region, including refineries in New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. [U.S. State Department, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, March 2013; U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2/7/12]

State Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement Noted That Refined Product Export Levels Have "Increased" And "Remain Elevated" in Parts Of U.S. The "Market Analysis" section of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) did state that exports of Canadian crude oil are "unlikely to be economically justified for any significant durable trade given transport costs and market conditions," as Kessler noted. However, the report stated that refined product export levels have "increased" and "remain elevated" in areas of the U.S. where less Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) oil is used. The FSEIS argued that Keystone XL would not cause an increase in refined oil exports, but conceded that "WCSB heavy crude may be refined in the United States and processed into petroleum products that are exported." From the report:

Finally, according to the modeling analysis above, U.S. product exports are not sensitive to different scenarios of pipeline development. It is possible that WCSB heavy crude may be refined in the United States and processed into petroleum products that are exported. Where less WCSB crudes are used in the United States, U.S. refined product exports remain elevated, in part with crudes from Latin America and the Middle East substituting WCSB crudes. Refined product export levels have already increased and some of the crude used is from foreign sources. As this may already be occurring, it may continue with or without the proposed Project. [U.S. State Department, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, January 2014]

Groups Opposing Keystone XL Have Noted That Its Oil Would Go To Refineries That Export Most Of Their Refined Products

Oil Change International's Stockman: Keystone XL "Would Serve A Very Specific Set Of Refineries" That "Export More Than 50% Of Their Products." In response to the IHS report, Oil Change International Research Director Lorne Stockman noted that IHS's conclusions were based on the "entire [PADD 3] market" when in fact Keystone XL would only serve a set of "export oriented refineries" that are located next to deep water berths and geared towards exports:

IHS states that only a third of [U.S. Gulf Coast] refined products are exported and this would not change with more Canadian crude. They therefore claim that 'most' of the products refined from the KXL crude would stay in the United States. But what they failed to point out is that the pipeline would serve a very specific set of refineries within the Gulf Coast refining market, not the entire market (known as PADD 3). These refineries in east Houston, Port Arthur, Texas and Lake Charles, Louisiana export more than 50% of their products. Their location next to deep water berths, and their product slate that is configured for popular export products such as diesel and petcoke, mean they lead the booming refined products export market in the US Gulf Coast in a way that refineries farther east and inland do not. [Oil Change International, 2/23/15]

Stockman and NRDC's Swift: Keystone XL Refineries Already Export "Over Half" Of Their Refined Products And "Are Very Likely To Be Exporting An Even Larger Share." In response to a similar article by the Washington Post Fact Checker from November, Stockman and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Staff Attorney Anthony Swift wrote: "By only considering exports of certain refined products and including 'Gulf Coast' refineries that don't have access to the coast and wouldn't be supplied by Keystone XL, the Fact Checker underestimates the percentage of refined product being exported by coastal refineries in the Gulf Coast -- concluding only 35% is exported. It's actually over half." Citing the most recent available data from the Energy Information Administration, Stockman and Swift noted that "[c]oastal refineries in Texas and Louisiana produced about 6 million [barrels per day] of refined product, of which they exported 3.1 million [barrels per day] last month -- over half of their production." They also cited several industry statements about exports as evidence that going forward, "refineries interested in heavy tar sands from Keystone XL are very likely to be exporting an even larger share of their product." [Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard Blog, 11/20/14]

Sen. Jim Inhofe's (R-OK) embarrassing attempt to disprove global warming with a single snowball was rightfully dismissed by the mainstream media -- but it was applauded on Fox News.

The February 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Saturday featured a clip of Sen. Inhofe's recent speech in which he brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to dispute the scientific finding that 2014 was the hottest year on record. The clip preceded an interview with Inhofe, in which co-host Tucker Carlson asked why some people are "trying to shut down debate" on the causes of climate change. Inhofe responded that "there are so many people out there in the extreme community, the far left ... and they're trying to revive this as an issue," adding that "it's become a religion." The only other questions Inhofe received during his interview were whether the U.S. should be "nixing" all climate change-related funding, and how he was able put together such a "nicely packed, well-constructed" snowball:

Other media outlets had a different take on the issue.

New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait called Inhofe's argument "breathtakingly devoid of a factual or logical grasp of its subject matter."

On the March 2 edition of The View, conservative co-host Nicole Wallace described Inhofe's action on the Senate floor as "moronic," adding: "if we want to get people younger than him to join our party I think it's time to stop denying and just say let's debate the solutions."

The Washington Post editorial board wrote that the stunt shows how Inhofe's position as chair for the Environment and Public Works Committee is a "national embarrassment," adding: "The Republican Party should be mortified by the face of their environmental leadership."

]]>http://mediamatters.org/blog/202719Mon, 02 Mar 2015 04:53:13 ESTAndrew Seifter: For Bjorn Lomborg, Shilling For Anti-Environmental Causes Is A Matter Of Life And Deathhttp://mediamatters.org/blog/202652
Bjorn Lomborg has argued for more coal use abroad and fewer electric cars here in the U.S., both times contorting the facts to cast his position as a way to keep people from dying. In each instance, Lomborg cloaks his anti-environmental positions in supposed concern for public health, rather than addressing the canary in the coal mine: The fact that coal emissions contribute to four of the five leading causes of death in the United States.

In a February 19 USA Todaycolumn, Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a long-time electric car critic, asserted that we should "stop our green worship of the electric car," in part because it "surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars." Lomborg was referring to a recent University of Minnesota study, which found that the pollution associated with electric vehicles powered by coal or "grid average" electricity result in more annual deaths than the pollution associated with vehicles run on conventional gasoline. Based on these findings, Lomborg concluded that "[i]nstead of focusing on electric cars, we should focus on making coal-fired power cleaner."

Of course, that wasn't the conclusion of the study Lomborg was citing. The University of Minnesota researchers instead emphasized that "electric vehicles (EVs) powered by electricity from natural gas or wind, water, or solar power are best for improving air quality, whereas vehicles powered by corn ethanol and EVs powered by coal are the worst." In other words, the solution is moving away from coal as quickly as possible, not scrapping electric cars.